I have observed some points when the term 'art' comes. As I am trying to generalise the things there may be exceptions and need not all the art stuff should have these criteria.
A creation to become an art I think it should have the following criteria.
1.
It should be capable of grow the minds of the viewer.2.
It should evoke the emotions/feelings/thought process in the minds of the viewer. The degree and the complexity of the em/f/tho.p.evoked determines the value of art. eg-an image of a beautiful sunset captured on a colourful beach may evoke a feeling of 'Happy' in the minds of a viewer who is new to photography and he may consider it as art. But for a person who has spent lot of time in studying photography it will be a one among the thousands and he will immediately forget the image. in the former case also if that novice continues his interest in the field and sees many photos,he too will forget that photo and no longer calls them as art.
I beleive, the impact increases when that emotion is not just the appreciation of beauty. And when the creation is more complex and tries tackle with human emotions/society /mind its value/ the time which remains the creation in the minds of the viewer increases.
I would like to give the same example which Ganesh gave in a similar discussion some time back, the works of
Sanjay Nanda. These are some close-ups of wall paintings.What if we try same thing in nature photography? If we try to make the close-up of a tiger/bird it remains as a portrait. But in the farmer example since they deal with the human aspect they succeed to grow in the minds of the viewer and attain the attributes to become a piece of art. It is relatively easy to associate with them, hence the image grows. If we photograph the 'touch me not' plant where it has closed its leaves, it remains as documentation shot/ behavioral study. We can't associate ourself with the plant's feeling of fear/ protecting technique etc.
I think, we need to find new ways to 'express ourself through nature" and nature photography.
3.
Somewhere it should be capable of cross the boundary of reality.It's very difficult to explain what I am trying to.I want to give one of
Nirlep's photo to illustate what I am saying.
This is an image of a very ordinary scene. but still it makes strong impact on our minds.It's a scene which we pass by everyday but fail to "see". As Ganesh said he has"transcended the reality into a kind of illusion".
One more example Vincent Vangogh's
self portrait. In both the cases I believe creators have succeeded to overcome the boundary of reality.
Though
this image of Kevin Carter is very haunting and lasts long in our minds since it doesn't cross the boundary of reality it falls in the documentary category and not in the art category, of course to my taste buds.
On a separate note, I broadly see two approaches in photography to accomplish one's desire to create art.
a. Being loyal to the medium.
Here I would like to clarify what I meant when I say "being loyal to medium'. Is it not altering the image to any extent? or is altering the the image to the extent where it was possible in the days of film photography? Then, now days one can use dodge/burn tool instead of clone tool in some cases. Can it be considered as retaining the purity?
Then also in the days of film photography technology was limited to that and as means to overcome that digital darkroom evolved. Then what is being loyal to the medium?
I found answer for this question in Nirlep's
article. (It is the one of the best article I read about photography. I can't say even after 5-6 reading I have understood it fully. Nirlep, please correct me if I am mis interpreting your article.)
The characteristic of camera which makes different from its closest form of art, painting is its ability to freeze the moments instantaneously.
I would like to quote Nirlep's word here
"photography work comes as a surprise to the photographer.There is a strong element of serendipity involved in this pursuit. A shutter release stamps the instant state of the photographer. And because the instant is not evolved at all, it is terribly alone, cut off from the continuum of life which we inhabit.""In the process of capturing moments the photographer becomes a strange attractor of moments. Each one of us must have had several occasions when in the process of making a picture the moment has travelled into the frame inadvertently, unannounced and silent. The visual alertness of the photographer instantly translates that moment into an element of composition thus transforming activity into an event."
b.Visualising or searching the opportunists to capture what we have in our mind. It's a process of realise and relieve the 'pain' inside us.
One of my image
is one such example. Though I have done very little Pp to this image I hesitate to say I have been loyal to the medium as it's not a 'spontaneous' image.
The term art covers a vast area and I am not sure I have found answer for that (yes, even after this lengthy note.) My views may change over time.
BTW, I liked this image very much. Liked the soft feel and the mood.